UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
RAJ K. PATEL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-cv-1076 (TSC)
)
)
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Raj K. Patel brings this action against the President of the United States,
a former U.S. President, the University of Notre Dame, one of its professors, Emory University,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the “United States Military,” and the State of Indiana. His
allegations appear to be based on:
• Notre Dame Law School examinations that were allegedly graded one month late due to the
professor’s pregnancy, but in which Plaintiff earned A’s before taking voluntary leave.
Compl. p. 5;
• Lowered grades and weight gain caused by “stress weapons,” as well as the use of “stress
weapons” by government officials. Id. pp. 9, 16-18;
• Law School professors who “said [Plaintiff’s] word patterns,” and the “transference” of
“word patterns” to former President Trump, without legal authority or compensation. Id. pp.
6-7, 9, 11;
• Breach of Plaintiff’s privacy through eavesdropping and “e-battery through hotel
television,” involving government officials. Id. pp. 7, 12;
• Violation of Plaintiff’s “Declaration of Independence” right to be “free to represent a
charter.” Id. p. 6; and
Page 1 of 2
• An ongoing unexplained “conspiracy” involving the whitehouse.gov website since the
Obama presidency. Id. p. 12.
Although he named fewer Defendants, Plaintiff filed an almost identical Complaint in the
Northern District of Indiana, Patel v. Martinez, 3:21-cv-241-RLM-JPK, in which the court
dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court will do
the same.
“Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the
federal claim is proper only when the claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior
decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal
controversy.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Oneida
Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). Because Plaintiff has
failed to proffer factual allegations that are plausible and/or actionable, by separate order, the
court sua sponte will dismiss the Complaint and this civil action without prejudice. 1
Date: July 2, 2021
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
1
The court will also deny Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint, ECF No. 5, because the
proposed amendments do not change the outcome of the litigation. Likewise, the court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order directing the United States Marshals to serve process in this action,
ECF No. 3, and Plaintiff’s Motion for CM/ECF access, ECF No. 2.
Page 2 of 2